Between health care and social services: Boundary objects and cross-sector collaboration.

Health care systems throughout the United States are initiating collaborations with social services agencies. These cross-sector collaborations aim to address patients' social needs-such as housing, food, income, and transportation-in health care settings. However, such collaborations can be challenging as health care and social service sectors are composed of distinct missions, institutions, professional roles, and modes of distributing resources. This paper examines how the "high-risk" patient with both medical and social needs is constructed as a shared object of intervention across sectors. Using the concept of boundary object, we illustrate how the high-risk patient category aggregates and represents multiple types of information-medical, social, service utilization, and cost-in ways that facilitate its use across sectors. The high-risk patient category works as a boundary object, in part, by the differing interpretations of "risk" available to collaborators. During 2019-2021, we conducted 75 semi-structured interviews and 31 field observations to investigate a relatively large-scale, cross-sector collaboration effort in California known as CommunityConnect. This program uses a predictive algorithm and big data sets to assign risk scores to the population and directs integrated health care and social services to patients identified as high risk. While the high-risk patient category worked well to foster collaboration in administrative and policy contexts, we find that it was less useful for patient-level interactions, where frontline case managers were often hesitant or unable to communicate information about the risk-based eligibility process. We suggest that the predominance of health care utilization (and its impacts on costs) in constructing the high-risk patient category may be medicalizing social services, with the potential to deepen inequities.

Implementation outcomes of Humanwide: integrated precision health in team-based family practice primary care.

BACKGROUND: Humanwide was precision health embedded in primary care aiming to leverage high-tech and high-touch medicine to promote wellness, predict and prevent illness, and tailor treatment to individual medical and psychosocial needs. METHODS: We conducted a study assessing implementation outcomes to inform spread and scale, using mixed methods of semi-structured interviews with diverse stakeholders and chart reviews. Humanwide included: 1) health coaching; 2) four digital health tools for blood-pressure, weight, glucose, and activity; 3) pharmacogenomic testing; and 4) genetic screening/testing. We examined implementation science constructs: reach/penetration, acceptability, feasibility, and sustainability. Chart reviews captured preliminary clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Fifty of 69 patients (72%) invited by primary care providers participated in the Humanwide pilot. We performed chart reviews for the 50 participating patients. Participants were diverse overall (50% non-white, 66% female). Over half of the participants were obese and 58% had one or more major cardiovascular risk factor: dyslipidemia, hypertension, diabetes. Reach/penetration of Humanwide components varied: pharmacogenomics testing 94%, health coaching 80%, genetic testing 72%, and digital health 64%. Interview participants (n=27) included patients (n=16), providers (n=9), and the 2 staff who were allocated dedicated time for Humanwide patient intake and orientation. Patients and providers reported Humanwide was acceptable; it engaged patients holistically, supported faster medication titration, and strengthened patient-provider relationships. All patients benefited clinically from at least one Humanwide component. Feasibility challenges included: low provider self-efficacy for interpreting genetics and pharmacogenomics; difficulties with data integration; patient technology challenges; and additional staffing needs. Patient financial burden concerns surfaced with respect to sustainability. CONCLUSION: This is the first report of implementation of a multi-component precision health model embedded in team-based primary care. We found acceptance from both patients and providers; however, feasibility barriers must be overcome to enable broad spread and sustainability. We found that barriers to implementation of precision health in a team-based primary care clinic are mundane and straightforward, though not necessarily easy to overcome. Future implementation endeavors should invest in basics: education, workflow, and reflection/evaluation. Strengthening fundamentals will enable healthcare systems to more nimbly accept the responsibility of meeting patients at the crossroads of innovative science and routinized clinical systems.